Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Secular Authority: response to Part I
As the text states, there are numerous verses in the Bible which tell us to submit to authority. However, this is only to the extent of following God's law. Authorities have their own law set up, so we must compare it to God's law in order to decipher what is biblically permissible.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Machiavelli Quiz
"The Prince is a concise statement of Machiavelli's belief that classical and Christian political theory is unworkable in a world that defines politics as the exercise of power and the struggle for power. It is also implicitly a rejection of a nihilistic counterethic, that only power and brute force matter."
Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
At first glance, it seems that Machiavelli does not justify any of his reasoning with any moral ethic. At second glance, one can see he claims that a prince must have "virtues" to be an effective ruler. However, at third glance, all of Machiavelli's observations, moral or not, boil down to a reason to protect the possession of the state. Germanis is correct in saying Machiavelli rejects the idea, "only power and brute force matter." According to Machiavelli, things like ministers, generosity, and morals are very important... too protect his position. Power of armies can aid in control, but only accompanied by other political methods.
In the earlier chapters of Prince describes everything from how to acquire a military state to what a prince should do to stop a revolt. Machiavelli then introduces what he calls "virtue" into the equation. His twisted definition is only "that which receives praise from others."
This new definition is too relative and not a true idea of "virtue."
Machiavelli also uses the idea of generosity, but again, not in the way it was meant. The prince should not be generous for the sake of being generous or because it is "good," but should be generous for the sake of keeping the state.
My mention of ministers is another proof for Machiavelli's reasoning apart from brute force and power. If brute force were the only means necessary, the prince would not need ministers to advise him on military theory.
Discuss to what extent you agree or disagree with this statement. What evidence can you bring to support your position?
At first glance, it seems that Machiavelli does not justify any of his reasoning with any moral ethic. At second glance, one can see he claims that a prince must have "virtues" to be an effective ruler. However, at third glance, all of Machiavelli's observations, moral or not, boil down to a reason to protect the possession of the state. Germanis is correct in saying Machiavelli rejects the idea, "only power and brute force matter." According to Machiavelli, things like ministers, generosity, and morals are very important... too protect his position. Power of armies can aid in control, but only accompanied by other political methods.
In the earlier chapters of Prince describes everything from how to acquire a military state to what a prince should do to stop a revolt. Machiavelli then introduces what he calls "virtue" into the equation. His twisted definition is only "that which receives praise from others."
This new definition is too relative and not a true idea of "virtue."
Machiavelli also uses the idea of generosity, but again, not in the way it was meant. The prince should not be generous for the sake of being generous or because it is "good," but should be generous for the sake of keeping the state.
My mention of ministers is another proof for Machiavelli's reasoning apart from brute force and power. If brute force were the only means necessary, the prince would not need ministers to advise him on military theory.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
